Possible considerations for dropping attack type restrictions.

[Hrugner]

I'm looking for a few other eyes on an idea for getting rid of a fiddly bit of rules garbage that doesn't seem to do much good. Looking at the restrictions on spell attack versus weapon attack, I don't see any huge balance issues with removing "weapon" and "spell" and just letting any attack work with any ability that requires an attack of either type. I see a few more options become available, but can't find any glaring balance issues opened up by this. Am I missing something?

[zeek0]

Hm. I'm not sure but I'll respond now, even though I'm away from my books.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are touch spell attacks = melee weapon attacks? Can I extra attack with ranged spell attacks? Do Hunter features work with spells? Does rage increase the damage of shocking grasp? Can I put a smite on my Harm spell? Does Improved Critical apply to disintegrate?

I think that additional effects are often added to weapon attacks because, at their base, weapon attacks are like cantrips and need their damage/impact boosted. To give those benefits to spell attacks seems foolish.

I'm not familiar why you would want/need such a houserule. Am I missing something?

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are touch spell attacks = melee weapon attacks? Can I extra attack with ranged spell attacks? Do Hunter features work with spells? Does rage increase the damage of shocking grasp? Can I put a smite on my Harm spell? Does Improved Critical apply to disintegrate?

I agree. Dropping the distinction between weapons and spells feels, instinctively, like a terrible idea. The rules allow for you to say any of the following:

Possible attack rolls
Melee weapon attack
Melee spell attack
Melee attack
Ranged weapon attack
Ranged spell attack
Ranged attack
Weapon attack
Spell attack
Attack
So if you want to create an effect that doesn't discriminate between weapons and spells, you already can. However, there are lots and lots of effects that need to discriminate, for one reason or another. It'd be like saying 'why do we have six (or seven if you count death saves) different types of saving throw? Can't you just make them all the same?'

[Hrugner]

Hm. I'm not sure but I'll respond now, even though I'm away from my books.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are touch spell attacks = melee weapon attacks? Can I extra attack with ranged spell attacks? Do Hunter features work with spells? Does rage increase the damage of shocking grasp? Can I put a smite on my Harm spell? Does Improved Critical apply to disintegrate?

I think that additional effects are often added to weapon attacks because, at their base, weapon attacks are like cantrips and need their damage/impact boosted. To give those benefits to spell attacks seems foolish.

I'm not familiar why you would want/need such a houserule. Am I missing something?

The purpose of removing the restriction is to open up more builds, if the builds wouldn't be particularly more potent than their straight class counterpart then I see no reason in restricting those builds. There are several examples of powerful combos that open up with this change, but getting improved crit disintigrate at 14th level means you dropped 3 caster levels, getting a smite and harm means you've dropped 2 caster levels. Looking at the balance changes would give me an idea of whether or not to make this a straight change, a feat required change, or to include it in a class archetype.


I agree. Dropping the distinction between weapons and spells feels, instinctively, like a terrible idea. The rules allow for you to say any of the following:

Possible attack rolls
Melee weapon attack
Melee spell attack
Melee attack
Ranged weapon attack
Ranged spell attack
Ranged attack
Weapon attack
Spell attack
Attack
So if you want to create an effect that doesn't discriminate between weapons and spells, you already can. However, there are lots and lots of effects that need to discriminate, for one reason or another. It'd be like saying 'why do we have six (or seven if you count death saves) different types of saving throw? Can't you just make them all the same?'

I agree it seems instinctively like a bad idea, but I'm trying to figure out if it is really a bad idea. I'd just be altering the list to look like this.

Possible attack rolls

Melee attack
Ranged attack
Attack

There's also half changes like expanding attacks to only include spells that require an attack roll rather than a save, but that seems too finicky.

[BiPolar]

My big concern is that spell attacks can be massively more powerful than weapon attacks - which is why I think they didn't allow multiple spells to be cast at will.

[DivisibleByZero]

Can I play at your table?
I want to roll up a Battle Master 3 / Warlock 2 / Bard 15.
I'll use EB for damage and to proc all of my Maneuvers, and since I have no real reason to continue either of those classes, the fifteen levels of Bard are just because Bards are the awesomesauce in 5e.

[Garfunion]

I see what the op is saying. There is still the attack action or cast a spell action, when you spend your action. Spell attack and weapon attack refers to the player's ability modifier they add to the attack roll and maybe damage.

Edit: I don't see a problem. As long as you still maintain action economy; attack action, cast a spell action.

[Beelzebubba]

Tell us when the last paving stones are laid down at Asmodeus' castle, and I'll bring popcorn. :smalltongue:

[BiPolar]

I see what the op is saying. There is still the attack action or cast a spell action, when you spend your action. Spell attack and weapon attack refers to the player's ability modifier they add to the attack roll and maybe damage.

Edit: I don't see a problem. As long as you still maintain action economy; attack action, cast a spell action.

If this is what Hrugner is going for, I was thinking something similar. Would adding your stat modifier to damage be a huge deal? Is that what you're going for, Hrugner? Or is it more about action economy and letting a caster get "extra attack" and whatnot?

[Ninja_Prawn]

I thought it was about stacking effects that would otherwise be incompatible, like how you can only get Rage damage or Divine Smite on a melee weapon attack. Or whatever. Barbarians are weird, but you know what I mean. Edit: apparently you don't. I know you can rage and smite on the same attack; I meant that those are two things that have restrictions. You can't smite on a Vampiric Touch, or combine Ensnaring Strike with Eldritch Blast.

I honestly can't be bothered to spade out all the implications, but what I do know as a frequent homebrewer is that every time I design a new class feature, I think very hard about which types of attack rolls it should apply to, from both fluffy and crunchy perspectives. I've never felt that that effort was wasted. Indeed, on several occasions I have made 'feature X now applies to roll type Y as well' a feature in and of itself. It's a nice option, don't take it away from me! :smallfrown:

[Garfunion]

I thought it was about stacking incompatible effects, like how you can only get Rage damage or Divine Smite on a melee weapon attack.

I honestly can't be bothered to spade out all the implications, but what I do know as a frequent homebrewer is that every time I design a new class feature, I think very hard about which types of attack rolls it should apply to, from both fluffy and crunchy perspectives. I've never felt that that effort was wasted. Indeed, on several occasions I have made 'feature X now applies to roll type Y as well' a feature in and of itself. It's a nice option, don't take it away from me! :smallfrown:
Rage only works with non-spell Strenght attack. As for Divine Smite, whether a Paladin gains access to green-flame blade cantrip or a sorcerer uses shocking grasp cantrip the damage is close enough the same.

Also keep doing what you are doing I love your homebrew stuff(MFoV). I hope to one day play a Toon.

[Vorok]

Warlock 2/Fighter 18

4 attacks per action, use Eldritch Blast with the Agonizing Blast Invocation, for 16 blasts a round (32 with Action Surge) for 16d10+CHA*16. If crit is possible, maybe take the Champion archetype if the increased crit range applied to it.

From up to 300 ft away with Eldritch Spear.

At least that was my first thought, and it probably doesn't work that way, but w/e. It was fun to imagine.

[Garfunion]

Warlock 2/Fighter 18

4 attacks per action, use Eldritch Blast with the Agonizing Blast Invocation, for 16 blasts a round (32 with Action Surge) for 16d10+CHA*16. If crit is possible, maybe take the Champion archetype if the increased crit range applied to it.

From up to 300 ft away with Eldritch Spear.

At least that was my first thought, and it probably doesn't work that way, but w/e. It was fun to imagine.
Eldritch Blast is a Cast a Spell Action not an Attack Action, so Extra Attack does not apply.

[PeteNutButter]

Firstly, Rage and Smite are completely compatible together. All you need is a paladin that can spare enough dex to wear medium armor (maybe rolled stats?) and it's actually a good build.

There are loads of things wrong with this idea from a balance perspective.
A single class blade lock goes from being kind of meh to permanently out damaging all other locks at level 11 when he can add his cha x2 to his EB. If that doesn't work, just take 11 levels in paladin for insane blasting. A paladin 11/lock 2/sorc 3/ fighter 3 can spit out something like retarded strong with his EB nova.

A partial lifting of restrictions might be neat, but I'd be really careful about a blanket lift as everything strong just became stronger. GWM+SS on spells... low AC Monsters be damned.

EDIT: VOLLEY! Did every attack spell just become AoE? Trollolololol

What about fighting styles? Do they just work for everything now?

[Hrugner]

If this is what Hrugner is going for, I was thinking something similar. Would adding your stat modifier to damage be a huge deal? Is that what you're going for, Hrugner? Or is it more about action economy and letting a caster get "extra attack" and whatnot?

This is entirely about ability compatibility. Getting an extra attack wouldn't get you an extra spell, you would however be able to add non-spell rider abilities on those spells like battle master abilities and sneak attack. This would also eliminate awkward things like the sun monk's spell attack ability that interacts with nothing.

Adding stat mod to damage as a baseline thing would require rejiggering of special abilities that include that benefit and I'd need to do the math on a few things that scale oddly in order to prevent all casters from being eldritch blasters, but removing the incentive for the 2 level warlock dip isn't entirely a bad idea. But that's not what I'm looking at here.


F
There are loads of things wrong with this idea from a balance perspective.
A single class blade lock goes from being kind of meh to permanently out damaging all other locks at level 11 when he can add his cha x2 to his EB. If that doesn't work, just take 11 levels in paladin for insane blasting. A paladin 11/lock 2/sorc 3/ fighter 3 can spit out something like retarded strong with his EB nova.

A partial lifting of restrictions might be neat, but I'd be really careful about a blanket lift as everything strong just became stronger. GWM+SS on spells... low AC Monsters be damned.

EDIT: VOLLEY! Did every attack spell just become AoE? Trollolololol

What about fighting styles? Do they just work for everything now?

A warlock wouldn't be able to make a spell his bonded weapon, so I'm not entirely sure how that works. GWM also has restrictions beyond "weapon attack" that would make this combo non functioning. Volley is potentially a problem, though it requires attack rolls which limits the spells available, and it requires a level 11 ranger limiting the spells available by quite a bit. Volley is certainly something to look at though, thanks.

[Garfunion]

Firstly, Rage and Smite are completely compatible together. All you need is a paladin that can spare enough dex to wear medium armor (maybe rolled stats?) and it's actually a good build.

There are loads of things wrong with this idea from a balance perspective.
A single class blade lock goes from being kind of meh to permanently out damaging all other locks at level 11 when he can add his cha x2 to his EB. If that doesn't work, just take 11 levels in paladin for insane blasting. A paladin 11/lock 2/sorc 3/ fighter 3 can spit out something like retarded strong with his EB nova.

A partial lifting of restrictions might be neat, but I'd be really careful about a blanket lift as everything strong just became stronger. GWM+SS on spells... low AC Monsters be damned.

EDIT: VOLLEY! Did every spell just become AoE? Trollolololol

What about fighting styles? Do they just work for everything now?
Lifedrinker adds the +cha to pact weapon not EB.
Divine Smite requires a melee attack not ranged attack which EB would be a ranged attack.
GWM are melee attack which Green-flame blade can benefit.
SS provided the similar benefits as SS does. The extra damage at the cost of accuracy is fine.

Edit: Volley is restricted to nonmagical ammunition/throw weapon not an attack roll. It effect is also a Saving Throw.

[PeteNutButter]

Lifedrinker adds the +cha to pact weapon not EB.
Divine Smite requires a melee attack not ranged attack which EB would be a ranged attack.
GWM are melee attack which Green-flame blade can benefit.
SS provided the similar benefits as SS does. The extra damage at the cost of accuracy is fine.

Edit: Volley is restricted to nonmagical ammunition/throw weapon not an attack roll. It effect is also a Saving Throw.

So it's the the weapon vs spell restriction that is lifted? Not the melee vs ranged...

Volley is not a saving throw. It is totally an attack, and doesn't say anything about non magical ammunition etc. It does say you must have ammo to hit every target, but if you were to say have a magical bow that didn't use ammo, I'm sure it would work, so a spell ranged spell attack isn't necessarily ruled out.

What about whirlwind with say a vampiric touch spell?

What about horde breaker? That seems to work with spells if you remove the weapon bit. It's like a free permanent twin.

Looking like every warlock is going to dip a level of fighter for archery style for his EB and use SS with it, because why not.

[Garfunion]

So it's the the weapon vs spell restriction that is lifted? Not the melee vs ranged...

Volley is not a saving throw. It is totally an attack, and doesn't say anything about non magical ammunition etc. It does say you must have ammo to hit every target, but if you were to say have a magical bow that didn't use ammo, I'm sure it would work, so a spell ranged spell attack isn't necessarily ruled out.

What about whirlwind with say a vampiric touch spell?

What about horde breaker? That seems to work with spells if you remove the weapon bit. It's like a free permanent twin.

Looking like every warlock is going to dip a level of fighter for archery style for his EB and use SS with it, because why not.

Sorry was looking at the spell conjure volley.

[Hrugner]

So it's the the weapon vs spell restriction that is lifted? Not the melee vs ranged...

Volley is not a saving throw. It is totally an attack, and doesn't say anything about non magical ammunition etc. It does say you must have ammo to hit every target, but if you were to say have a magical bow that didn't use ammo, I'm sure it would work, so a spell ranged spell attack isn't necessarily ruled out.

What about whirlwind with say a vampiric touch spell?

What about horde breaker? That seems to work with spells if you remove the weapon bit. It's like a free permanent twin.

Looking like every warlock is going to dip a level of fighter for archery style for his EB and use SS with it, because why not.

Right, The distinction between "spell" and "weapon" would be removed, but nothing beyond that.

Twin doesn't require that the targets be adjacent. It would be very potent when it came up, but I don't know how often that would happen. The only free twinning available is through the enchantment school. Whirlwind is very cool, whirlwind with vampiric touch would come online at 16th level at which point you have a 3x3 square centered on you taking 5d6 damage and healing you the same amount. That doesn't sound like a great use of an action at 16th level when compared to a straight ranger or wizard at 16th level, I could be wrong though as I have yet to play a game that gets to 16th level. Again, it would be situationally awesome, but commonly worse than upcasting the spell through being a straight wizard.

Volley does appear to be a problem, rewriting it so that you needed to expend the spells, just as you would with the ammunition, should shore up some of the problem. Still, it may be best to leave the restriction on volley.

[Garfunion]

Green-flame Blade the go to melee weapon attack Cantrip.

Horde Breaker does not say you use your action, it only say you make a weapon attack(range or melee). Without the change, GfB can still work ( I'm using my cast a spell action). I can now make a melee weapon attack after using the cantrip. I can not use GfB again because it is not giving me an extra action.
With the change a could use vampiric touch but because the spell does not contain a weapon nor does Horde Breaker give me an extra action I can not get the extra attack or cast a spell again.

Volley and Whirlwind Attack are special actions. So you can not use an Attack Action or Cast a Spell Action. The change would not affect/apply to these.

[Garfunion]

Looking like every warlock is going to dip a level of fighter for archery style for his EB and use SS with it, because why not.

And a fighter can take archery style and take crossbow expert and use a heavy crossbow.

[PeteNutButter]

And a fighter can take archery style and take crossbow expert and use a heavy crossbow.

The difference being that EB scales on character level, not class level effectively nullifying the point of every staying in fighter for those extra attacks. That and it's force damage, can be quickened to double again, can push foes away, etc.

It completely destroys any reason to be a normal archer.